OBAMACARE: new insurance exchange will be paying less—in many cases, far less—than they would pay for equivalent coverage today.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 24, 2013 9:44 PM GMT
    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113289/obamacare-california-no-sticker-shock-here#

    "Based on the premiums that insurers have submitted for final regulatory approval,

    the majority of Californians buying coverage on the state's new insurance exchange will be paying less—in many cases, far less—than they would pay for equivalent coverage today.

    And while a minority will still end up writing bigger premium checks than they do now, even they won't be paying outrageous amounts. Meanwhile, all of these consumers will have access to the kind of comprehensive benefits that are frequently unavaiable today, at any price, because of the way insurers try to avoid the old and the sick. "
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2013 8:24 PM GMT
    Now that all the original sources are saying that they have erred in their math, care you revise your OP?

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/03/democrats-new-argument-its-a-good-thing-that-obamacare-doubles-individual-health-insurance-premiums/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2013 9:35 PM GMT
    Riddler, Riddler, Riddler.

    Not quite.

    Here's a pretty dispassionate analysis.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/01/the-shocking-truth-about-obamacares-rate-shock/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2013 9:49 PM GMT
    showme saidRiddler, Riddler, Riddler.

    Not quite.

    Here's a pretty dispassionate analysis.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/01/the-shocking-truth-about-obamacares-rate-shock/


    Actually, quite. You seem to have missed the criticism of this article in the original one (read down a bit further):

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/03/democrats-new-argument-its-a-good-thing-that-obamacare-doubles-individual-health-insurance-premiums/

    It's also as dispassionate as Ezra Klein who has been anything but objective as a cheerleader for Obamacare.

    Ezra Klein of the Washington Post, in response to my article on this topic, checked out the eHealth rates for plans in his hometown of Irvine, California, and compared them to a similar website sponsored by the government at healthcare.gov. He found that the third-cheapest plan there cost only $109 a month, “if they’ll sell it to you for that price.” According to the government, Ezra notes, 14 percent of people who tried to buy that plan—Health Net’s IPF PPO Value 4500—were turned away. Another 12 percent were asked to pay more than $109.

    To Ezra, it’s galling that three-fourths of his compatriots can pay $109 for health insurance, because 12 percent were not eligible for the plan, and another 14 percent had to pay somewhat more. This is why Obamacare is a great achievement, he says, because Health Net will have to serve all comers, regardless of prior health status.

    And I appreciate Ezra’s perspective. I, too, am a supporter of universal coverage, so I understand Ezra’s passion for providing health insurance to the sick. But what we didn’t know last week—and we do now—is how much more the healthy will have to pay for that insurance, under Obamacare. In Orange County, where Irvine is located, the three-fourths of the 25-year-old population that is in good health will have their premiums jacked by 95 percent.

    And that’s for Obamacare’s “catastrophic” coverage; the more comprehensive “bronze” plan increases premiums by 130 percent. For the fraction—one-eighth of the total—who, under the old system, would have been charged more, the premium increase due to Obamacare will be somewhat less.

    And the vast majority of those who were turned away are able to find insurance—albeit at a higher price—elsewhere. Based on enrollment in Obamacare’s high-risk pool program, the number of people in America who are truly uninsurable is closer to 150,000. That’s a pretty small number in a nation of 300 million. Previous estimates of the uninsurable population came in around 2 to 4 million people, but it’s likely that for many of these individuals, the principal problem is not that they’re denied coverage, but that the premiums are high.


    Cali-25-yo-catastrophic.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2013 10:00 PM GMT
    The "response" is kind of a diatribe, weaving all over the place and ending up in a defense of e-Health. Weird.

    But he really doesn't dispute Klein's central point, which is that the comparisons are apples to oranges (the plans on eHealth have higher deductibles/copays and lower overall limits, and aren't available to all).

    The ultimate policy question will be whether close to univeral coverage will be worth the extra amount that some end up paying.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2013 10:13 PM GMT
    Aristoshark saidThe Avik Roy piece has already been debunked as dishonest and fraudulent.
    Meantime, the Ridiot's country already offers national healthcare. Does he think he deserves it more than we do?


    You have an odd definition of "debunked" especially when it actually wasn't. And you think that the healthcare that we have is sustainable? Once again you show us on cue how demonstrably stupid you are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2013 10:19 PM GMT
    showme saidThe "response" is kind of a diatribe, weaving all over the place and ending up in a defense of e-Health. Weird.

    But he really doesn't dispute Klein's central point, which is that the comparisons are apples to oranges (the plans on eHealth have higher deductibles/copays and lower overall limits, and aren't available to all).

    The ultimate policy question will be whether close to univeral coverage will be worth the extra amount that some end up paying.





    Weird diatribe? Did you miss reading Klein's "analysis" that even dispute that of Roy's?

    From Klein:
    Some people will find the new rules make insurance more expensive. That’s in part because their health insurance was made cheap by turning away sick people. The new rules also won’t allow for as much discrimination based on age or gender. The flip side of that, of course, is that many will suddenly find their health insurance is much cheaper, or they will find that, for the first time, they’re not turned away when they try to buy health insurance.


    From Roy:
    In 2009, was Ezra saying that it’s ok that premiums will double for the average person, because a minority of people will pre-existing conditions will benefit? No. [...]

    And that’s for Obamacare’s “catastrophic” coverage; the more comprehensive “bronze” plan increases premiums by 130 percent. For the fraction—one-eighth of the total—who, under the old system, would have been charged more, the premium increase due to Obamacare will be somewhat less.

    And the vast majority of those who were turned away are able to find insurance—albeit at a higher price—elsewhere. Based on enrollment in Obamacare’s high-risk pool program, the number of people in America who are truly uninsurable is closer to 150,000. That’s a pretty small number in a nation of 300 million. Previous estimates of the uninsurable population came in around 2 to 4 million people, but it’s likely that for many of these individuals, the principal problem is not that they’re denied coverage, but that the premiums are high.


    Roy directly points out that prices for insurance are increasing dramatically. There's no apples to oranges comparison - in fact, the apples and oranges comparison can be seen in the OP where there's the claim that the new insurance exchange will mean "the majority of Californians" will be paying less.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2013 1:36 PM GMT
    Unabashed bump.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2013 4:46 PM GMT
    Aristoshark said
    riddler78 said
    Aristoshark saidThe Avik Roy piece has already been debunked as dishonest and fraudulent.
    Meantime, the Ridiot's country already offers national healthcare. Does he think he deserves it more than we do?


    You have an odd definition of "debunked" especially when it actually wasn't. And you think that the healthcare that we have is sustainable? Once again you show us on cue how demonstrably stupid you are.

    LOL
    You're too stupid to know who's smart and who isn't.
    And the Avik Roy piece has been called out for its dishonesty in many, many analyses. Principally for comparing costs to a health insurance plan that most people can't even buy because of pre-existing conditions.

    If you had one ounce of intellectual integrity------oh what am I talking about, it's you. Lying is the only thing you know how to do.


    Except for the minor fact that even Ezra Klein and others are now acknowledging that costs will rise in many cases dramatically. Given Ezra Klein's piece was so easily debunked and you have nothing to show for your claim that "Avik Roy piece has been called out for its dishonesty in many, many analyses" it's kind of comical you have the chutzpah to claim that I'm the one that's "too stupid to know who's smart and who isn't".

    Wallow away in your idiocy - of course, it doesn't really matter since Obamacare is happening - particularly in California where they've attempted to fool Americans once already claiming that the exchange would result in lower costs.

    Too bad that's been debunked - which still makes the original claim in the OP false. I'd keep bumping this up just as a reminder of what a moron you are if it weren't so self evident icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2013 6:28 PM GMT
    we are discussing this topic here too, http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/3227264

    what i do know from experience:

    if you are one of the lucky younger ones (under 30) that your health dictates the use of a HMO (cheapest insurance), would hardly ever use your insurance except for emergencies, than a PCP with a HMO should be your choice, for most of my life i used either parents plan or the HMO when i got little older, if i did need any care, the HMO paid 90-100% of the cost of everything, minus my co-pay (co-insurance does not apply with a HMO)

    because more shit happens to your body as we age (over 40), it became necessary to look into a PPO because the HMO plan has limited specialist that the PCP can send/refer you to, a PPO plan gives you flexibilty when you need a certain specialist or hospital, of course, these plans cost more, have high deductibles, co-payments AND co-insurance, some only pay 60% of the cost and thru everything else, your portion is 40%+ your deductibles

    a flexible spending account (FSA) -HMO or health savings account (HSA) -PPO are fairly new, but do have some advantages if you choose a PPO plan, if you set aside money for medical expenses, you better use it, or lose it

    i have noticed a recent price spike in the HMO plans also, but it is still half the price of a PPO plan, so, figure where you are health wise + your age (this is why insurance companies always do price figures according to your age), if money is your issue, then go with a HMO plan, have your PCP take care of you when needed, but dont complain about the service, its cheaper, you get what you pay for, if health is your issue, pick a basic PPO plan (with a high deductible) to keep your cost down

    just as with any insurance, shop around, im just glad the pre-existing condition will be gone esp on ehealthinsurance.com, they cannot charge me extra because i need to see a dermotologist several times a year
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2013 7:33 PM GMT
    Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Obamacare's State-Run Health Exchanges

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/06/04/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-obamacare.aspx

    In May, California unveiled the participants in its state-run exchange. Of the 13 health-benefits providers, notably absent was UnitedHealth Group (NYSE: UNH ) , Aetna (NYSE: AET ) , and CIGNA (NYSE: CI ), ..................these are the A+ rated carriers and plans, should we boycott these because they are not participating?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2013 10:07 PM GMT
    Anatomy of a Bogus Obamacare Argument
    How an irresponsible Forbes writer distorted the debate

    http://www.newrepublic.com/node/113362#

    "If you want to know why we can’t have an honest debate about Obamacare, all you have to do is pay attention to some recent news from California—and the way a highly distorted version of it, by one irresponsible writer, has rippled through the conservative press."

    Most Important Points:

    "the most amazing part of Roy’s entry was what it didn’t say. Roy never acknowledged that, even as young and healthy people would have to face higher premiums, older and sicker people would face lower premiums. He said absolutely nothing—not a single word!—about the federal subsidies available to people with incomes below 400 percent of the poverty line. (That's about $46,000 a year for a single adult, or $94,000 for a family of four.) This has been a pattern with his writing and, unfortunately, much of what I read on the right. Articles focus on the drawbacks of Obamacare but almost never acknolwedge the benefits."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 04, 2013 10:34 PM GMT
    blazerblue saidAnatomy of a Bogus Obamacare Argument
    How an irresponsible Forbes writer distorted the debate

    http://www.newrepublic.com/node/113362#

    "If you want to know why we can’t have an honest debate about Obamacare, all you have to do is pay attention to some recent news from California—and the way a highly distorted version of it, by one irresponsible writer, has rippled through the conservative press."

    Most Important Points:

    "the most amazing part of Roy’s entry was what it didn’t say. Roy never acknowledged that, even as young and healthy people would have to face higher premiums, older and sicker people would face lower premiums. He said absolutely nothing—not a single word!—about the federal subsidies available to people with incomes below 400 percent of the poverty line. (That's about $46,000 a year for a single adult, or $94,000 for a family of four.) This has been a pattern with his writing and, unfortunately, much of what I read on the right. Articles focus on the drawbacks of Obamacare but almost never acknolwedge the benefits."


    That argument is just fundamentally dishonest. Who do you suppose will bear the brunt of the costs of healthcare? Who do you suppose is paying for those subsidies?

    There's a fundamental problem that costs are rising dramatically in these exchanges - that you don't seem to want to acknowledge. The answer you and other seem to want to tout is that for many people they'll be eligible for subsidies that will make it cheaper.

    This can't possibly be true for everyone unless you think money grows on trees. If you want to look at a dishonest argument, you might want to look at the New Republic article that doesn't discuss how subsidies are calculated but infers that subsidies will result in "the majority" of individuals having cheaper insurance. Surprise, as the Roy examples show, that's really not going to be the case - and the further you get away from being subsidized, the worse the costs of insurance will get for you.

    By all means, dig in - as it gets implemented, I'm guessing you will be less than thrilled at the midterm results.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2013 7:46 PM GMT
    A full compilation of the debunking of the supposed "fall" in healthcare premiums in California:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/04/obamacare-breaks-promises-in-california-and-supporters-would-prefer-you-not-point-it-out/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2013 3:37 PM GMT
    Again, debunking the supposed counterarguments:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/04/obamacare-rate-shock-how-big-is-it-does-it-matter.html

    Again, the OP unfortunately is either a lie and/or a fantasy.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Jun 08, 2013 3:49 PM GMT
    "Who Ya Gonna Believe" icon_question.gif

    The facts....or the GOP/TEAbaggers icon_question.gificon_question.gif





    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 08, 2013 4:20 PM GMT
    rnch said"Who Ya Gonna Believe" icon_question.gif

    The facts....or the GOP/TEAbaggers icon_question.gificon_question.gif





    icon_lol.gif


    Doesn't really matter how deluded you are - I'm posting for the record - and any reasonable person looking through and reading the arguments and facts should conclude that the OP was a lie. It's going to happen and you can decide if you want to believe your lying eyes or well, your eyes later.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2013 12:38 PM GMT
    So the three insurers left comprise of 87% of current market share. Given that the markets should grow significantly this could even more dramatically drive up prices as supply has also shrunk.

    "California Loses Another Insurer"

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324436104578581800898560688.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLESecond

    Maybe California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones has gathered from the flighty Gov. Jerry Brown that the key to succeeding in California politics is maintaining an inconsistency of mind. That would be the charitable explanation of his recent contradictory statements.

    The commissioner this week bemoaned UnitedHealth Group's UNH +0.41% decision to flee California's individual insurance market and thus strand 8,000 policyholders. "I don't think this is a good result for consumers," said Mr. Jones. "It means less choice, less competition and even more consolidation of the individual market with three big carriers."

    UnitedHealth's move comes on the heels of Aetna's AET -0.48% announced exit last month and leaves only Anthem Blue Cross, Kaiser Permanente and Blue Shield, which currently comprise 87% of market share. Both UnitedHealth and Aetna determined that the ObamaCare exchange compromised their business and actuarial models regardless of whether they participated.

    As Mr. Jones noted, the consolidation of insurers reduces choice and competition and ultimately could drive up prices. But then just last month the commissioner recommended that the state's small business exchange exclude Anthem Blue Cross, supposedly as punishment for engaging "in a pattern of excessive and unjustifiable rate increases."